Description
This paper interrogates the viability and normative legitimacy of non-military applications of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), drawing on comparative case studies of Haiti (2023–present) and Syria (2011–present). While R2P was designed as a multidimensional framework encompassing prevention, diplomacy, and post-conflict rebuilding (ICISS, 2001; UNGA, 2005), its global implementation has disproportionately emphasised coercive military measures (Bellamy, 2015; Hehir, 2013). In response, this study engages decolonial theory (Lugones, 2010; Quijano, 2000), Marxist critiques of humanitarian intervention (Chomsky, 2011; Cox, 1981), and human security perspectives (UNDP, 1994; Acharya, 2007) to assess the potential for non-militarised protection strategies grounded in regionalism and local agency. Through qualitative analysis of official UN reports, regional policy documents, and secondary literature, the paper reveals that while Haiti suffers from the invisibility and fatigue of repeated failed interventions (Schuller, 2016; CARICOM, 2023), Syria illustrates R2P’s paralysis in the face of geopolitical deadlock (Thakur & Orford, 2012; Haddad, 2020). Nevertheless, both cases demonstrate partial successes of non-coercive mechanisms, including regional diplomacy, humanitarian corridors, and transitional justice initiatives.
